This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
This was was cloned from bug 16099 as part of operation convergence. Originally filed: 2012-02-24 04:50:00 +0000 ================================================================================ #0 contributor@whatwg.org 2012-02-24 04:50:50 +0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/timers.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#custom-handlers Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#custom-handlers Comment: "gopher" should be whilelisted Posted from: 2001:470:1f07:57:9c49:2f25:e632:b8ce User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.46 Safari/535.11 ================================================================================
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: Added gopher to the whitelisted schemes Rationale: Bring gopher onto the Web. https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/3e589bc6751d9d4b8f746c7b25cab64e118e397e
It's not clear to me why we would want a website to be able to become the gopher protocol handler. We obviously wouldn't want http to be in the whitelist, and gopher seems to be in the same bucket as http. I think this should be reverted.
Reopened based on discussion at http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120906#l-682
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Rationale: Gopher considered harmful https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/20ab137355a21e4f6de2740ae997819f1b8f01ed
If nobody objects, I will pull in the paragraph from Ian that explains how we regard it as harmful: https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/63289e0e25cd1fe077ac3cdce46f41dec515de0d
(In reply to comment #5) > If nobody objects, I will pull in the paragraph from Ian that explains how we > regard it as harmful: > https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/63289e0e25cd1fe077ac3cdce46f41dec515de0d +1 go ahead!
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Partially Accepted Change Description: applied patch https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/63289e0e25cd1fe077ac3cdce46f41dec515de0d Rationale: merged explanation by WHATWG why gopher is not in the list